Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

What else was he going to take - a mass of cut intestines, a leaking stomach? In reality, if anyone's interested in an abdominal "souvenir", there are very few practical options.

If he had followed what we can see Annies killer specifically sought...then he wouldn't have taken the kidney at all. Again, its on record that the man who examined Chapman though "the whole operation" was to obtain precisely what he took. And he only took 1 item intact...the same one that was taken partially, from Kate.

Theres the line we have...if Annies killer specifically sought to kill and take a uterus, what doesn't not taking a uterus in a very similar slaying indicate? New objectives? Kates killer didn't realize that Annies killer did these things to obtain the uterus specifically? Someone is mimicking acts without the requisite compulsions for specific organs?

[Harry D]

It's so obvious that I almost can't be bothered to point out the absurdity of this. Are you sure this isn't a "bit", Michael?

[Joshua Rogan]

Ill add that most people have a strong resistance to suggestions that abdominal mutilations would be done by anyone other than the mythical jack. That's why Kate is included I believe,... what organ taken, though Annies killer was specifically driven to a particular organ, becomes watered down when Kates kidney is added. So now its not a uterus, though he took a partial, now its a kidney...which would mean the uterus wasnt specifically sought in Annies case. Thing is though, it appears it was.

So, by the same logic, I take it you no longer believe that Kate's nose was cut off to mark her as a snitch, since the numerous other cuts to her face water down that apparent intent?

[Michael W Richards]

It's so obvious that I almost can't be bothered to point out the absurdity of this. Are you sure this isn't a "bit", Michael?

Sorry Harry, not clear about what you mean. Phillips said everything I just repeated about what he perceived was the ultimate objective in Annies murder, so why isn't that the same with Kates? Simple. Defensible question.

[Michael W Richards]

So, by the same logic, I take it you no longer believe that Kate's nose was cut off to mark her as a snitch, since the numerous other cuts to her face water down that apparent intent?

I don't post in such a cryptic manner that people would easily misrepresent what I said...which makes me wonder why some persistently do anyway, but I never said Kates nose wasnt a "snitch" marking, I said I thought it was a few posts back. Even in the opening post. There are other" cuts to her face, sure, since it was almost pitch black where she was killed.... three of them or more might have been done while attempting to cut the nose....has anyone claimed her head couldn't move while he did that? Does anyone know she was fully unconscious when they were made...Im surprised that people who think Mary was killed by the same killer, who cut her while she still could manipulate her arms and therefore was still conscious, wouldn't seize that parallel. Not that they would be correct, just that I thought people would use it as an argument to marry the 2 of them.

[Michael W Richards]

Kate Eddowes claimed to be about to name someone she thought was the killer at large for the reward, there was no reward offered by the Police at this time so she evidently knows of the private rewards. She will be doing what is commonly called snitching, but could be ratting someone out...being a stool pigeon, or a canary. She is found with her nose cut in a consistent manner with street women who would do something like this and get caught doing so. There is no reason to assume she was correct about the person she was suspecting, nor that he had actually killed any women during this period. There is no reason to assume that the man she was to name was the mythical Jack. There is clear implication however that her claim suggests he knew someone she believed was capable of such things.

[Sam Flynn]

Again, its on record that the man who examined Chapman though "the whole operation" was to obtain precisely what he took.

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

We have a clumsy opening but the uterus and all its appendages were removed with skill and expertise. Then we have the opposite with Eddowes an expert opening but a clumsy removal. Two different killers, or two different removers of organs ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

"The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Now you might want to question what specific parts he refers to Sam, but to me the statement appears it is as I suggested. Phillips thought that Annies killer, with some savy anatomically, set out to get her uterus. That to me is a very dialed in focus. How he goes about doing that may be somewhat represented again in Kates murder, ...no flaps.....but again, lots of men in the area at that time cut flesh as part of their job or for recreation. It needn't be assumed that only Jack could or would open a body up, but if Annies killer was Jack..and I believe he was,...then it could be assumed that his target was specific in this murder. Whether he maintains that specificity going forward is going to be revealed on his next outing, which if any, is likely Kate. And the organ that is removed with some care isn't the uterus. The uterus is taken sloppily. Partially.

Added to that inept uterus extraction we have facial cuts, appearing as if made with the tip of a blade, we have a severed colon section placed between arm and body exposing feces, and we have a section of clothing cut and taken. There was apparently some other agenda here as well.

I maintain that when there is evidence that a foundation for a motive exists that does not definitively point to a previous unknown killer who kills for thrills, then its best to examine that fully before deferring to a premise that has evidence that is suggestive only, and interpretable rather than definitive.

[Sam Flynn]

Michael - that does not altet what I've pointed out repeatedly. If Phillips had presided over the Eddowes case he could have said precisely the same. You're reading far too much into it.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael - that does not altet what I've pointed out repeatedly. If Phillips had presided over the Eddowes case he could have said precisely the same. You're reading far too much into it.

He couldn't have said the "whole operation" was to obtain the uterus in Kates case Sam, which is what ive repeatedly said. The specific organ, not just some organ from a general region. The fact it was a uterus is in and of itself interesting.

[Fiver]

Any other victims have defensive wounds? Isnt it blatantly obvious that Kelly struggled against her attacker?

The post mortem report says that "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition." If these were self-defense wounds, they would have been concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm.

[Michael W Richards]

The post mortem report says that "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition." If these were self-defense wounds, they would have been concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm.

Its plainly evident some deep wounds are on her left arm as well, the wounds are certainly consistent with defense motions, and considering it appears she was on her side facing the wall when her throat was cut, Id say the flailing arms and facial slashes were when she reacted to that cut. People assume the victims were unconscious, but its evident that some wounds could well have ben made while semi conscious or even alert. Kates nose cuts could have been made before her throat cuts for example. Choked to semi conscious state, hand over mouth, make the face marks, then slit the throat.

[Sam Flynn]

Any other victims have defensive wounds? Isnt it blatantly obvious that Kelly struggled against her attacker?

I wouldn't read too much into that. Kelly was practically naked (her arms were certainly bare) and in bed, probably facing her attacker. The others could easily have been taken by surprise from behind.

[Harry D]

Sorry Harry, not clear about what you mean. Phillips said everything I just repeated about what he perceived was the ultimate objective in Annies murder, so why isn't that the same with Kates? Simple. Defensible question.

I'm asking you if this is a shtick or not. The amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics needed to prop up this theory are considerably less than just accepting that Eddowes was murdered by the same eviscerator.

First of all, the police always looked at the antecedents of the victim regardless if it had the Ripper signature. Therefore, the idea that a second killer performed the extensive mutilations and organ removal to throw off the cops is spurious and better left to the realms of fiction.

If someone was afraid of Eddowes shopping them to the police, killing her in the manner befitting the Ripper was all kinds of stupid for reasons I'm sure don't need explaining.

If someone did want Eddowes silenced, they could've slit her throat and been done with it. After all, they never caught Liz Stride or Frances Coles murderers.

The Ripper had only previously removed a uterus, so why would a copycat increase the risk of being caught by rummaging around for a kidney too? Wouldn't this seem far likelier to be the same eviscerator upping the ante?

If the nose removal was a warning to snitches, surely this was lost when everyone lumped her murder in with the Ripper victims?

I think this will be my last post on the matter. No offence, but I don't have the energy to waste on such drivel.